Re: Typos (Was: performance comparison)

On Aug 29, 2004, at 11:21 AM, David Ross wrote:

>>>
>>> With Most scripting languages which have
>>> safety  protection force the programmer not to
>> even
>>> think about the underlying code. With this, this
>> is
>>> the proof of why scripting language programmers
>> are
>>> not as good as per sey..
>>>
>>
>> For me, programming languages are like tools.  A
>> good tradesman uses the
>> right tools for the job.  The right tool is the one
>> that makes works best
>> to achieve the desired outcome. A bad tradesman only
>> is best described as
>> the one who uses a hammer to put in a screw, 'cause
>> they only know how to
>> use hammers, not screw drivers.
>>
>> Ofcourse, real programmers use microcode, ASM and
>> FORTH.
>
> This is where I don't understand most people. You can
> use any language(scripting or non-scripting) to make
> what others consider overkill. Making usage of
> available libraries is a good start. Most quit at the
> mark of not knowing how to use a library. This is 201%
>   untrue. You can use C for anything you use ruby on.
> I will use C as an example here. you can make a
> gigantic  application faster in C than ruby iff you
> have proper libraries. One design I like about Ruby is
> that it takes less time to write code and complete an
> application. Well guess what, you can do the same with
> C if you had a nice set of libraries. I am sure most
> people talk bad about C are not professional at all.
> Think of C not as a hammer, but as an Anything Object.
>  It can be used for anything(unless you need to pass
> assembly to unlock processor code). Restricted
> languages which you could not add to would be
> considered a hammer, or a screw driver. I think this
> explaination pretty much ruins the idea of C being a
> hammer, which sounds rediculous in the first place.

As someone who has done plenty of woodworking and carpentry, I submit 
that all programming languages are like saws. One might be a handsaw, 
one a tablesaw, one a handheld circular saw... and so on. Some saws 
(like a jigsaw) can really only be used properly for specific purposes, 
but other saws (a handsaw, for instance) can be used for pretty much 
anything.

But still, you would never see someone cutting out parts for a row of 
cabinets with their handsaw. And if you see someone cutting out a 
picture frame with a jigsaw, you *know* they don't know what they're 
doing. It's important to choose the most appropriate tool for the job.

So you might compare the choice between C and Ruby to the choice 
between a handsaw and a tablesaw. C does a nice job and you can use it 
for almost anything, but in many cases it isn't appropriate. If you are 
creating a short program that copies files or filters text, perhaps 
Ruby (or one of those *other* languages) is a more appropriate tool for 
your job. If you are doing intense data processing, and speed is an 
issue, you might turn to C.

I suspect that eventually, someone will come up with a language that 
separates algorithms from procedures, in a way that allows better 
optimizations for number-crunching parts of the code. But this 
"Universal Saw" is a ways off, I'm sure. It would need to allow the 
programmer to dynamically (and transparently) trade ease of coding for 
extra runtime speed.

cheers,
Mark


>
> ----------------------------------------
> -- Name: David Ross
> -- Phone: [phone]
> -- Email: drossruby [at] yahoo [dot] com
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>